mgo.licio.us

"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."

At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”

Bo set the gold standard. He had a winning percentage of .789, won or shared 13 Big Ten titles in 21 years, had 16 top 10 finishes, but had a bowl record of 5-11. As much as we revere Bo, we understand that its harder in this day and age to do that considering the Big 10 truly was a 2 team conference back then.

Gary Moeller had a winning percentage of .758, had 3 Big Ten titles in 5 years, 3 top 10 finishes and was 4-1 in bowl games.

Lloyd had a winning percentage of .753, won 5 Big Ten titles in 13 seasons, had 5 top 10 finishes, 1 national title, and was 6-7 in bowl games.

I know during Lloyd's tenure, a lot of fans grumbled that it was not enough. Curious to hear people consider to be good enough to satisfy them. Obviously we all want to be top 10 every year, win Rose Bowls and national titles, but that is easier said than done.

My definition of success is running a clean program that represents the school well, winning 75% or more of our games, competing for the Big 10 title every year, and winning a few as well. I want to win against Ohio State, or at least split games with them, and beat MSU at a 2 out of 3 ratio at least. I didnt have as much of a problem with Lloyd as many did, and during 2008-2010 I wished things were back to how they used to be. So what do you consider to be a success for Michigan and Brady Hoke going forward?

For a single season, win the B1G Championship and go to the Rose Bowl.

For our overall program, success is being able to do that consistantly, with ups and downs of course. A down year every once in a while is acceptable for a good program, ideally for us that means winning against only one of MSU/OSU and finishing second in the division. And those down years ought to be balanced out with years where we compete for National Titles. In the new format it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect a playoff birth every few years.

This is where I'm at as well. I'd like for Michigan to be a contender at worst, but mostly a favorite for the BIG title every year and a playoff contender in most years. I'm not going to say that I think we should win the national tittle every few years, but I'd like for us to be in the playoffs at a minimum of 1 every 3 to 4 years if it stays at 4 teams.

into being ok with 8 wins a season, going to a mediocre bowl and winning. I thonk thats the difference in Bo's bowl record vs Carrs. Sure, Carr did win a NC, but it seemed either feast or famine. Bo's teams were playing Rose Bowls almost every year. I want to be a perrenial conversation at the end of every season. I have no doubt that we are heading that way, and also that Hoke's record when all is said and done will cast a big shadow over Carrs.

Brian prophesied his return and his coming would hail the destruction of Ohio State and Sparty, end the war, bring freedom to our people.

Win the big ten title....sadly this means we haven't been successful in a decade. If you would have told be this would ever happen to Michigan football 20 or 25 years ago I would have laughed in your face.

Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

As a whole the 13 year span is impressive. But most agree that its a tale of two periods with the first through 2001when we won big games (beating OSU and winning Rose, Orange, and Citrus Bowls) vs. the end through 2008 when UM couldn't win the big game (like this season).

Everyone would take Carr's first 6-7 years, fans grumbled at the last 6ish years for not winning the big game and losing 4ish games a year.

To the OP's question. My ideal dream scenario would be:

9-11 win seasons. In the 13 game world we live in now this should be the norm. Esp when you consider how weak the B1G is. Btw a 9-4 record is 69% winning % so accepting 4 losses (or expecting 9 wins) isn't a stretch.

At least a split between OSU and the Bowl game most years (3 out of 4 years). This is a tall order, but again this is my ideal. Obviously beating OSU is the priority vs. the bowl game. Losing the last two really just puts a bad taste in the mouth and hurts perception. Esp if the bowl loss is in a Florida bowl against the SEC #3-4 team. Years we lost both and win both offsetting would be nice. I'm assuming most years we split.

B1G championship every 3 years. Those who stay will be champions. This sounds like a lot but like you mentioned Moeller and Carr won 8 in 18 seasons for a 44% B1G championship rate. so its doable. Also, OU has won the Big 12 8x times since 2000...so there is a precedent in other conferences. I think the Big12 vs. B1G are good comps as well.

I think about this question and realize that we have a pretty high bar when it comes to what the program has averaged since 1969. Our average seasonal record would translate to 9-3, we average 2nd in the conference, and when included in the final rankings in the AP and Coaches Poll, we actually average a Top 10 position in both. That's probably something few other programs could use as a baseline measurement in a nearly 45-year span.

That being said, from a summary standpoint, anything within one standard deviation of those numbers is really a pretty successful season numerically, in this case meaning 8-10 wins, somewhere in the top three in the conference (which means being in the discussion for the BTCG if not in it most years). That would mean a Jan 1st or later bowl most of the time. I could take that as a typical expectation statistically as well as from the standpoint of being a fan - in the new system, the odd playoff appearance would be a great addition as well.

"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."

In the modern era, the 90's should be regarded as the gold standard for us. This is what we achieved in the 90's:

94-26-3 Overall (.782)

61-17-2 Big Ten (.783)

7-3 in Bowl Games

3-1 in BCS Bowls

2-1 in Rose Bowls

7-2-1 against Ohio State

4-3-1 against Notre Dame

6-4 against Michigan State

5 Big Ten Championships

1 National Championship

2 Undefeated Seasons

2 Heisman Trophy Winners

If we can duplicate that, I'll be happy. There were other teams that were perhaps more dominant in the 90's (Miami, Nebraska), but we had nine good seasons, one perfect season, won a handful of conference championships, and produced two Heisman Trophy winners, all without any rampant misbehavior or trouble with the NCAA. No other program can claim that.

To me the minimum is an 8 win season and a bowl appearence in "rebuilding" type years (Minimum) ala you're starting a new young QB, you lose a ton of guys to graduation or the NFL, or you have a new coach. The expectation should be 9 wins, winning 2 of 3 from ND, MSU, and OSU, in the running for the division title, and a New Year's Day bowl (Baseline). Success is a 10 win season, a B1G title, and a Rose Bowl appearence (Success). Anything more than 10 wins is gravy with a 1 loss or undefeated season once a decade or so when all the cards fall our way (It Happens).

This is a process, we've gotten the monkey off our backs with MSU and OSU, we've gone to a BCS bowl and had a 10 win season already, and we haven't had less than 8 wins yet. So far I'd say we're on track and assuming we break through with a B1G title within the next 3 years and never drop under 8 wins.

Strength equipment is expensive and guarantees you nothing. A strong will is free and can give you everything you want.

I'm pretty realistic about Michigan's spot in the college football universe, and I realize that our chances of being the flagship program in the B1G all but went kaput the second OSU snagged Urban Meyer. I also think it's reasonably established by now that to be consistently in the hunt for the MNC, a program has to outright cheat or at the very least play fast and loose with moral grey areas (oversigning, abusing medical hardships etc).

Obviously, I'd hate for my school to be engaging in those kinds of activities, so my barometer of success is very simple: have a top ten-ish type season (11-2 with OSU and BCS wins is dandy to me). Or, absent the quantifiable victories, just be more exciting/entertaining than frustrating/predictable. Having a ten win season against this year's schedule would have been a really tall order, but the second half against OSU, the Bellomy fiasco and the sheer degree of Bama destruction were enough for me to file '12 under "not successful."

I'd put Hoke at one out of two so far, and my pointless speculation is that this is about what I should expect for the near future.

Why do you so readily concede superiority to Meyer? Granted, he has an outstanding track record, but I don't see any reason why Hoke can't go toe-to-toe with him. Hoke has already won more head-to-head recruiting battles against Meyer than he's lost. The Game was pretty competitive and could easily have gone the other way. Hoke hired the same defensive coordinator who Meyer rode to a national championship in 2006. I think the jury is still out on whether Hoke is of the same caliber as Meyer.

He might have been at Florida, but given that Ohio is on probation and won't be out of the repeat offender window for at least another four years, I think he has no choice but to run a tighter ship now.

I just can't see hanging one's hat on head to head recruiting battles. Losing a couple guys to Hoke won't kill Meyer's recruiting classes. OSU will almost certainly have a top ten class, and if Meyer closes like he usually closes while Michigan loses a guy or two they could even finish with a higher ranked class. In any matter, having the # 2 class versus #5 or however it plays out isn't a huge difference in my eyes.

We do have Mattison, but you have to respect Meyer's track record for finding coordinators. On offense, they have Urban, just about the best in the biz. We have Al Borges, the quintessential pro-style retread.

I'm not saying I think Michigan will never beat OSU again, but it may not be soon, and I definitely don't believe it will be frequent. Sure, you're technically correct about the jury being out, but it's in about the same way the determination has yet to be made whether Raymon Taylor is of the same calibre as Charles Woodson.

3. Beat OSU 50%+ of the time. Bo did it. Mo did it. Lloyd was doing it until the wheels fell off the wagon from 2001- 2007. He should have retired two years earlier and kept the 50%+ streak going.

4. I'd include Notre Dame but they don't really matter anymore.

5. Beat MSU 70-80% of the time. UM only lost once in the 70's, twice in the 80's and three times in the 90's. Three losses should be the limit for any decade.

6. Play in NYD bowl games (Gator or better) in 7/10 seasons.

If you throw all of those things together, you're probably looking at primarily 9-3 or 10-2 regular seasons most of the time. I'll always "take" 11-1 or 12-0. Four losses are OK for "rebuilding" years. It's hard to call five or more losses a "good" season. 2012 was only the third times they've lost five or more games since the Bo era began (excluding the RR years) along with 1984 and 2005.

I agree, but I don't think it's unrealistic to expect one season every 10-15 years (or maybe 15-20 years) where everything comes together and we win the national championship. There were a few seasons where Bo was literally a handful of points away from a perfect season and a probable national championship ('88, '85, '80, '71).

I'd love to win X number of games and go to X bowl game X number of times and beat the rivals X number of times, but what I really would like to see is the team manhandle the teams that they should manhandle on a regular basis. I know "lesser" teams get fired up to play a big name like Michigan but I'd like to not have to stress out about a game against lesser opponents. (e.g. easily cover spreads) I don't need the extra stress from something that is supposed to be fun to watch.

Oh, and I'd love to see a player like Denard/Desmond/Woodson on the team on a regular basis - someone that makes you think magic can happen every time they touch the ball.

Being competitive nationally. I never cared about beating OSU or playing in the Rose Bowl; given the state of the B1G, that really isn't an accomplishment. But when UM can walk into a BCS bowl game against a top-notch team from a power conference and win, that's a great season. Beyond that, a generally good season is 9 wins, with a couple against quality opponents. I rather have a consistent winner with some peaks than the wild swings you see at places like Auburn, USC, etc. where you win 11 games one year and then crater the next couple.

I want Michigan to be one of the best teams in the country. A team that people watch and admire for its skill, quality, and dominance in an average game. It should be one of the leading programs every year, even in years where it's not the best.

A lot of people are talking about beating OSU and combining that with various other goals. Remember, OSU is good and a good OSU is good for us; 50% is a good number in a top rivalry, and I want Michigan-OSU to have national implications every year. That may mean we lose some OSU games when we have a great team, but in those seasons we still ought to be BCS bowl contenders or, at worst, Cap One/Outback Bowl winners. Say, 10-2, Cap One bowl, beat Texas A&M 35-24.

But that should be a "meh" year. Maybe not rebuilding, and in the top ten, but setting us up for a bigger season ahead.

Because Michigan should be a playoff contender every year.

This "win the B1G, make it to the Rose Bowl" stuff has to stop. That's pansy stuff. I know it's important to win the B1G and make it there, but the goal should be to WIN the Rose Bowl and WIN the national championship.

I don't know about you, but making the Rose Bowl wasn't good enough for me in 1986, or 1989, or 1991. It wasn't good enough for me in 1997 either, and I wasn't particularly happy with how the 2003, 2004, and 2006 seasons ended.

I want Michigan to be a winner.

Numbers:

More than 2 losses in a regular season is unacceptable, except for one rebuilding year every five years.

Beat OSU 50% of the time.

B1G championship game 50% of the time (if we're in OSU's division; quite possible to lose to them and still make the game).

Win the B1G championship game 2/3s of the time when we're there.

Playoff berth every 3 or 4 years. Win a national championship at least once in 10 years.

... A lot more than we succeed. That might work for some, but not for me.

My definition for success involves a number of factors, but loosely speaking if we beat OSU, win a BCS bowl, or win the B1G the season is a success. Yes, 1-11 with an OSU win might be a success to me.

Without those we would need a major bowl win and a 10-win season for success.

My criteria for program success are a clean program with minimal off-field incidents and those that we do are handled appropriately, academic success for the players, and successful seasons 15 out of 20 years.

I want to go back to when teams lost to us before they even stepped on our field. We lost that mystique when we scheduled, and lost to, App. St. We will know that Hoke has accomplished what was asked of him when teams speak about our team with trepidation in their voice and fear in their hearts.

Not too different from yours. Over the long term, winning 2/3 of non-cupcake games while graduating most of the players and avoiding scandals or other incidents that embarrass the school. Over any given season, it depends on the schedule and other circumstances such as injuries.

...I don't really care about wins so much. The most important things are program stability with high graduation rates and minimal embarrassing, off-field activities.

Given the number of people in college football who have a win-at-all-costs mentality, I'm just not even sure that it's worth expecting to compete with them when we all know the playing field is rarely level. And when you consider the risk of Colorado or Penn State style scandals, I don't feel it is worth the risk of creating expectations for wins and subsequently hero-worshipping those coaches & players who deliver on those expectations.

I know that I'm in the minority but if I learned anything from the recent years of Michigan football it's that a losing season is no the end of the world. The game is meant to be a fun, Saturday afternoon distraction and if one keeps a level head about things, then even the losing seasons can provide a pleasant bit of entertainment.

I'd also agree with those who suggested that we only have two uniforms. Maintaining traditions should also be considered a baseline of success. The more we lose such things, the easier it is to lose interest. And that, for more than any wins, would be a much greater failure.